Budget battle recriminations: Cohen on what DFLers did wrong

Ever since Gov. Tim Pawlenty put an abrupt and unprecedented end to a stalemated legislative session last month, there’s been a line of recrimination circulating around the Capitol that blames House leadership, and in particular Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-Minneapolis), for sending all the spending bills to the governor’s desk early and putting Pawlenty in a position to seize all the initiative in settling the state’s budget.

Today Dick Cohen (DFL-St. Paul) (pictured), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, is quoted making a similar case in the Star Tribune, albeit without any mention of House leadership or Kelliher:

[Cohen said]… "we allowed this to happen."… DFLers took too long to zero in on a unified, attainable tax proposal, he said, and made a critical mistake in sending Pawlenty spending bills first, which eliminated the need for a special session. Pawlenty was able to approve appropriations bills but veto the tax bill that provided the revenue, clearing the path for him to wield the emergency budget power known as unallotment.

It’s a hard criticism to fathom. Certainly the Legislature could have forced a special session by withholding a key spending bill or two. But Pawlenty almost as certainly would have won the war of soundbites that the move engendered, since it’s very easy for the guy with the biggest bully pulpit to broadcast the obvious criticism: "The public has to pay for a special session because Democrats didn’t get their job done on time."

But more to the point, the essential dynamics of the standoff would have remained the same–two DFL chambers stymied by Pawlenty and a thoroughly regimented House GOP caucus–until it turned into a game of chicken over forcing a government shutdown.

So, to be clear: To think it was a fatal tactical mistake to send Pawlenty all the spending bills during regular session only makes sense if one also thinks a shutdown showdown was the rightful endgame. That’s a perfectly legitimate argument, but plenty fraught. As a practical matter, how would that kind of heat have gone down with the DFL membership of both chambers, do you suppose? And what would have been the chances that Democrats could either a) make Pawlenty blink on new taxes or b) win the larger battle of public perception that a shutdown threat would entail?

This afternoon I talked to Cohen briefly about his criticisms. What changes by forcing a special session? "I’m not sure anything does," he says. "It could have had the same result at end of the day. Or, to the extent we could have forced the governor to negotiate, and presented our own position better, it might have changed the outcome." (He adds that he’s not one of the people pointing fingers at Kelliher: "It’s a mixture, all the way around. It includes me. I don’t think in the context of a session you can pinpoint one person. Margaret did a great job in many respects, so you can’t suggest she has sole responsibility for anything. It’s a shared responsibility.")

In retrospect, says Cohen, the biggest mistake DFLers made was a big-picture mistake: "We didn’t allow enough time to get a message out there as to what our combination of revenues and cuts were all about. You didn’t have the House and Senate on the same page until two to three weeks before the end of session. That’s not enough time to generate a coherent message. Could we have shifted the burden of proof to the governor if we had done a better job with that? We don’t know. and we won’t ever know."

No Responses to “Budget battle recriminations: Cohen on what DFLers did wrong”

1. Anonymous Says:
   June 18th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

   “Spending bills, in case you’ve forgotten your Civics 101, originate in the House.”

   It looks like you need to revisit Civics 101. That’s revenue raising bills, not spending bills.

   SF 2083, Omnibus Higher Education appropriations
   SF 802, Omnibus Public Safety appropriations
   SF 2082, Omnibus State Government appropriations
   SF 2081, Omnibus Jobs and Economic Development appropriations

   This means nearly half of the appropriations bills were Senate Files. If you are going to promote supposed outrage at an individual, you should at least do it with information based on a credible premise.

2. Anonymous Says:
   June 19th, 2009 at 9:10 am

   “We didn’t allow enough time to get a message out there as to what our combination of revenues and cuts were all about.”

   Probably true, but more importantly, the DFL waited too long to effectively rebut Republican objections to DFL proposals. Ann Lencewzeski did a great job of it, but waiting til midnight on Saturday night two days before end of session is nuts! If the DFL can’t get up the nerve to go toe-to-toe with Seifert, Emmer, Buesgens and the like, then we have no choice but to let voters continue to elect George Bush/Tim Pawlenty type leaders and wait for them to screw up the economy so badly that even those with long-standing Republican roots start to see the real picture.

3. Anonymous Says:
   June 19th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

   Who needs to revisit civics 101? Actually - it’s revenue raising or tax bills that need to originate in te House. Appropriation bills can be eithher a Senate or a House file.